Contract Source of Supply using BADI BBP_SOS_BADI

[Former Member]

Hello,

We are in Classical scenario in SRM 7.

I have implemented the BADI BBP_SOS_BADI and did the search criteria modification in BBP_SOS_SEARCH.

I am filling the table 'et_found_contract' as required and it is having some items. However the SOS tab in the portal is showing empty.

This is because the system in include LBBP_PD_SOSF26, is making an asynchronous rfc call and getting the contracts through FM META_SOURCEDETER_GETSOS_MULTI result. This is probably getting the contracts from the backend system.

So the output table 'lt_found_contracts' of this FM is used to fill the SOS tab and not the 'et_found_contract' from the BADI.

I have entered some data in debug mode into this table 'lt_found_contracts' and it is showing in SOS tab.

Any pointers how I can make the table 'et_found_contract' show in SOS tab?

Thanks

Ritish

[Former Member · Accepted solution]

I have raised this issue with SAP after finding no solution. SAP has confirmed what I have analysed -

this BADI will not work for classical scenario. It will only work for extended classic scenario.

In the standard process there is no way to maintain your own logic for classic scenario sos determination.

Thanks everybody for your suggestions.

[lisa_sheil]

Hi Ritish,

Please read the following thread, it contains a fix for the BADI for something similar to what you wish to do:

http://forums.sdn.sap.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1905181

I hope this helps,

Kind Regards,

Lisa

[Former Member]

Basically I want to know whether the BADI BBP_SOS_BADI -> BBP_SOS_SEARCH only works in the extended classic system. For classic system, the system is picking up the contracts from the backend system and not considering the list I have built in the table 'et_found_contract' (though the BADI is getting triggered). Or is there any setting to change the search logical system to SRM instead of the the ECC backend system.

[ricardo_cavedini]

Hello,

Note 1401401 disables de asynchronous call and it makes the synchronous RFC call as default.

Would this change the behaviour that you are facing?

Regards,

Ricardo